Arab Moderates

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Yes there have been many wars fought under the banner of Christianity. But how many are recent? Art pointed out that almost every upheaval in the world today involves Muslim extremists. Why is that?

Sure there are Christian extremists, even here in the US (Rudolph, McVeigh etc). The difference is our Govt hunts them down and takes them out. The muslim extremists in the middle east are rewarded and revered.

Well You must have been sleeping during the War in Bosnia

Croatia (mostly Catholic) and Serbia (mostly Eastern Orthodox) joined forces to crush the Muslims in Bosnia it was not just a war for territory Croatia and Serbia (especially their Paramilitary forces) killed Bosnian Muslims by the tens of thousands they would go to a town gather up the men and either execute them right away or torture them in ways that I will not write here, then they would rape every female from age 7 to 70

The War in Kosovo is a smaller version of Bosnia

However America intervened and saved thousands of Muslims from ethnic cleansing and genocide

[Kilmer17]

Yes we did, and the Muslim world thanked us by???????? Continuing to teach their children to hate America. To celebrate terrorists and to fund extremists.

[redman]

Equality, while Bosnia is certainly a better example than N. Ireland, the fact remains that that conflict had more to do with nationalism and historical ethnic differences than religion.

But here's the key distinction: did you ever hear a religious rationale for the "ethnic cleansing' in Bosnia? Did you ever hear of an endorsement by international Christian leaders of what happened in Bosnia? Neither did I.

I hope you don't think that I'm mincing words because these are key distinctions in this discussion. I'm defining a religious war or conflict as one where the motives, and not merely the effect, of the fight has been for members of one religion to target/conquer/destroy members of another. That's precisely what significant portions of Islam are doing, but you have to go back in history a fair amount of time to find comparable actions by Christians.

Again, let me be clear: I'm not saying a given Christian is a better or more decent person, or even likely to be a better person, than a given Muslim. I'm simply pointing out the trends in the religions at large, particularly with regards to what their leaders are endorsing.

[Storm]

As for the Crusades, those arose out of a time of trememdous dysfunction for Christianity, when the Church was frankly more of a political body with earthly aims than it was a religious body. Heck there was a fairly sizeable "nation" in existance then called "The Papal States", which is the precursor to today's Vatican. It's no coincidence that the era of the Crusades were followed shortly by the Reformation, which was the ultimate protest against the Church's excesses.

It doesnt make any differnce when it happened as long as it happened. If youre arguing that inherently one religion is more prone to violence than another yourve got to consider the whole history of the religion.

Could this be a time of turmoil for Islam? sure, remember, it was founded some 800 years after Christianity so its about the same age as christianity was when the crusades occures.

[luckydevil]

"I confess...is Sikhism a form of Islam?"

No, it branched out from Hinduism

[redman]

Storm-

I don't necessarily disagree with your point that one can't simply ignore history when comparing religions. I'm not. But it's interesting that Christianity's darkest hour came from an excess of secular interests within its leadership, whereas Islam's darkest hour arises out of hyper-religiosity, no?

[Darth Tater]

'...more prone to violent interpretation...'

Seems that some who are attempting to argue with redmen here do not have the ability to read English or maybe their just picking a fight. More indicates comparison of the 'prone to violent...' property to other religions, it does not negate that property as one belonging to other religions. It is, in fact, an admission that other religions have that property. Something the comment goes on to further highlight.

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by redman

Storm-

I don't necessarily disagree with your point that one can't simply ignore history when comparing religions. I'm not. But it's interesting that Christianity's darkest hour came from an excess of secular interests within its leadership, whereas Islam's darkest hour arises out of hyper-religiosity, no?

Isn't the Ba'athist Party secular? I don't think Saddam had much interest in Islam until after the Gulf War. He saw he could use religion to his advantage and gradually made it apart of his persona. He even went so far as to build elaborate mosques for the Shiites, as well as the Sunnis and began daily religious broadcasts.

Now, was he hell bent on developing WMDs in order to further the Muslim cause? Given the timing of his conversion, I doubt it. Therefore I submit that his interests were purely secular.

[Riggo-toni]

Originally posted by TheKurp

Isn't the Ba'athist Party secular? I don't think Saddam had much interest in Islam until after the Gulf War. He saw he could use religion to his advantage and gradually made it apart of his persona. He even went so far as to build elaborate mosques for the Shiites, as well as the Sunnis and began daily religious broadcasts.

Now, was he hell bent on developing WMDs in order to further the Muslim cause? Given the timing of his conversion, I doubt it. Therefore I submit that his interests were purely secular.

Very true Kurp, but what is interesting about all the facts you mention is how much of a hero Saddam became by pretending to embrace Islam. This is quite telling (and thereby disturbing) vis a vis current Arab Muslim convictions and attitudes.

Up through the 70s, the driving force in the Arab world was the dream of Pan-Arab nationalism spawned by Egyptian dictator Nasser. Nasser was a secular leader. For example, Christianity's oldest surviving sect, the Coptic Church (originated from the Alexandrine Jews converted by the Apostle Paul whose ancestors had translated the Old Testament into Greek {the septuagint}) was well protected under Nasser, who viewed them as Arabs first, and therefore allies. Nasser's socialist policies of nationalizing industries, similar to the bad economic policies of Mussolini or Ataturk, became the pattern for other Arab leaders. Nasser hoped to cement his legacy as the great Arab leader of the 20th century by wiping out Israel. Instead, he was humiliated every time. In 1967, Israel managed to wipe out the bulk of the Arab armies and secure even more territory in just 6 days. In addition, the bureaucratic web spun by Arab socialist policies managed to choke off any potential for economic development.

Middle Eastern society values honor and victory at a great premium, and yet Arabs have known nothing but defeat and submission for over a thousand years. Can anyone name a successful Arab warrior? Saladdin was a Kurd, not an Arab. The great Muslim conquerors (Suleiman, etc.) were all Turks. Arabs have known nothing but humiliation and submission, whether it's been dealt out by the Turks, the Europeans, the Israelis, or America.

In 1967, everyone expected the Arab armies to crush Israel. Instead they were thrown back, and in the aftermath Arabs saw on TV and in print images Jews giving thanks to their God YHWH for protecting them. Fouad Ajami noted that this was what gave birth of the current wave of fundamentalism. Arabs blamed their military losses on the greater piety of the Israelis and their leadership compared to corrupt secular Arab dictators. Then in 1979, religious fundamentalists in Iran managed to humiliate the US when they took embassy staffers hostage and paraded them in front of the cameras. The fervent Arab nationalism of the 60s has been supplanted by Islamic fundamentalism. Even a secular leaders like Mubarak now anatagonizes Copts as a way of proving his Islamic credentials to the larger population.

The one Arab leader who best dealt with the Fundamentalists - the late King Hussein of Jordan. He allowed free elections for local officials rather than installing all of his own cronies. Fundamentalists were elected - and quickly proved themselves to be just as corrupt and oppressive as their predecessors. Give'em enough rope, and they'll hang themselves!

[Prosperity]

If the Arab countries were democratically elected, (i dont think Egypt counts Im not sure about the way their Government works but i know its kind of weird that they only get a new "President" when the old one dies) then maybe the the populace would push for one big Arab nation (it would make sense i mean people in Syria have same culture language and religion as the people in Jordan), however I do not think any of the dictatorships are willing to give up their autocracy just for a more powerful Arab country.

The Iranian Revolution had very little to do with Israel. The Shah just tried to make the nation too modern too fast in reaction many of the religious leaders became radically fundementalist. Just like how now because the government is so fundementalist the people are becoming very reformist in reaction to the governemnt.

Most Iranians I know are even for bringing back the monarchy of the shah.

[Riggo-toni]

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521

If the Arab countries were democratically elected, (i dont think Egypt counts Im not sure about the way their Government works but i know its kind of weird that they only get a new "President" when the old one dies) then maybe the the populace would push for one big Arab nation (it would make sense i mean people in Syria have same culture language and religion as the people in Jordan), however I do not think any of the dictatorships are willing to give up their autocracy just for a more powerful Arab country.

I'd have to disagree with that completely. Pan-Arabism is really a myth - the different Arab tribes and sects hate each other. They do not want to be part of the same nation. Remember, the nation-state was purely a Western concept, and lumping people together by drawing boundaries was probably the largest contributer to the ocean of maladies in the Middle East (as well as Africa and the Balkans). Leaders like Saddam and Ghaddafi trumpeted the cause of Pan-Arabism solely because they ultimately dreamed of conquering the entire Middle East like a modern day Saladin.

Let's take your example of Jordan and Syria.

Jordan is about 60% Palestinian, and the remainder is primarily Bedouin. Its religion is Sunni Muslim. Syria, on the other hand, is a mixture of Sunnis, Alawites, Druse, and Shiites. Sunnis consider Alawites to be not only heretics, but almost subhuman. The other Arabs hate the Palestinians and view them as parasites. Syria would not want to assimilate into a country full of Palestinians, nor would Sunnis want to be part of a nation that tolerates Alawites. Racism is more vicious and rampant among Middle-Eastern cultures than anywhere else in the world. I am certainly not saying it is exclusive to Arabs - look at hatreds between Serbs and Croats or Azeris and Armenians for example. In the Arab world loyalty is first to the extended family, then one's tribe/ethnicity, then religious sect, and lastly nation.

And to answer your question, Egypt is also a dictatorship.

[Prosperity]

Well didnt know that... thanks

[redman]

Equality,

riggo's right about that, and much better informed about it than I am.

Regarding Iran (didn't you say that you were Persian?), I don't know that the Shah was particularly great for Iran. While he was building a modern secular state, the excesses of him and his regime are what led to that revolution. But unlike the Arab states, I can see democracy working in Iran given the propensity fo the people there to see themselves as a nation as opposed to a tribe. It's a highly literate and educated society; the problem is that they moved from under the thumb of one oppressive regime, to being under the thumb of another.

As for your friends, I assume they're all Iran expats. If they're pro-Shah, something to consider would be the extent to which they got special priveleges under the Shah's regime. If the issue is betterment of that country, their personal preferences may not be reflective of that.

[Prosperity]

Well you are right that the Shah was very brutal, however he did build Iran to be the most powerful nation in the area. Now we are just another poor unsuccesful dictatorship.

And while he was cruel he was no where near that of the Mullahs who now rule, which is probly why he is looking better and better.

I remember one time the governement leaked (on purpose maybe) a recording of a dissident being tortured (they were taking out his eyeballs) to scare other Iranians of what will happen if they stand up against the government.

(the new theocratic government)

[redman]

Believe me, I'm not endorsing the current government at all. I'm just making the point that that country could do far better than it has in terms of the government.